Zechariah 9–14 in the Gospels

(avg. read time: 7–14 mins.)

In December 2016, my first article came out in the Journal of Theological Interpretation entitled, “The King Arrives, but for What Purpose? The Christological Use of Zechariah 13—14 in Mark 13.” In it, I looked at the use of Zech 9–14 in Mark, with the major focus of my argument looking at how Zech 13–14 was used in Mark 13. I was able to build on much previous research on the links of these chapters to Mark and the other Gospels. Interestingly, in June 2017 across the pond, Paul Sloan was completing his dissertation, now published, entitled Mark 13 and the Return of the Shepherd: The Narrative Logic of Zechariah in Mark. Neither of us knew about the other’s work, but we made many similar observations independently and both realized, though not in the same ways, the importance of Zech 13–14 for Mark 13. Likewise, we both echoed other scholars in observing the resonances, including a couple direct quotations, of Zech 9–14 in Mark. I make these observations only to make the point that the influence of this part of Zechariah has been recognized more broadly, and here I wish to condense what I and others have found.

As I have already reiterated the points I made about Mark 13 in a previous post, I will not be repeating those observations here. Rather, what I would like to do is examine the use of Zech 9–14 in the Gospels in general. I already have a foundation for this work, including with the definitions of key terms, with my survey of Zech 9–14 in Mark, but we need to cast a wider net to look at the parallels for those texts and uses of Zech 9–14 beyond them.

Before I get into the details, though, a particular challenge with this body of text must be acknowledged. It may be the case that links are made not so much by verbal similarity as by structural or thematic links, as I argued in my Mark 13 article. One reason this is the case with Zech 9–14 in particular, even though there are quotes of it, is that, as scholars have often recognized (and as Konrad Schaefer in particular has explored), Zech 9–14 functions as one of those capstones of the OT canon with its many allusions to earlier (especially prophetic) texts.¹ As such, there may be times when Jesus or the Gospel narrators allude to or echo Zech 9–14, but it is less clear because the text is so ensconced in other texts that have similar vocabulary and themes. Thus, many cases that scholars may identify as connections to Zech 9–14 may be cases where the intertext is less pronounced amidst other texts it is associated with. Even so, there is a reason why this particular body of text was important to Jesus. As I argued in my article, it does well to convey Jesus’s complex identity as the one who is the king of Zech 9 and the king of Zech 14.

Perhaps the most general level of influence is from Zech 14:9. I have already noted how Daniel influenced the language of the “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” even if the term per se was not there. I think another stream of influence for the “kingdom of God” is Zech 14:9, which serves as a reformulated Shema that emphasizes the sole reign of God. Of course, in the targum of this passage, it is referred to as the kingdom of the Lord, which shows that Jewish interpreters came to think of this passage with such terminology independently of Jesus. Given the eschatological associations of this passage and of the notion of the kingdom of God/heaven, one should hardly be surprised that Zech 14:9 is a tributary for this eschatological hope. This is especially so since it is connected with his coming and the importance of this notion to the overall OT and to the portrayal of Jesus.

For an example of the latter, we need only look to the time after Jesus’s first prediction of his death and resurrection when he refers to his coming in glory. In Matt 16:27 // Mark 8:38 // Luke 9:26 we have what may be a combined allusion to Dan 7:13 (hence the reference to the Son of Man coming) and Zech 14:5 (hence the reference to his coming with the [holy] angels). The contexts of both passages also comport in the arrival of God/the Son of Man in judgment to vindicate the righteous or to condemn the wicked, as well as the establishment of God’s kingdom (as noted above). Similarly, we see a combination of allusions to these texts in Matt 25:31, where N. T. Wright describes the effect for both of these cases well: “Here we have a reference to Zech. 14.5, which ‘attracts’ the idea of the ‘coming of the son of man’ from Dan. 7.13, and places it in a different context from that of e.g. Mt. 24.30.”²

But where Zech 9–14 is thought to be more frequently influential is in the Passion narrative and its lead-up, beginning with Jesus’s triumphal entry. Indeed, every Gospel features this story and every version is shaped with reference to Zech 9:9 (Matt 21:1–9 // Mark 11:1–10 // Luke 19:28–40 // John 12:12–19). After all, Jesus quite deliberately seeks out an unridden donkey colt to ride upon to enter Jerusalem. Only Matt 21:5 and John 12:15 actually quote the text, but its influence is clearly present in the action of the story itself, whether or not the Zechariah reference is explicit. John’s is a more condensed quotation than Matthew’s, but neither of them quite follow the LXX (nor any of the other Greek versions). Matthew’s is either a personal translation from the Hebrew or a translation that is simply otherwise not attested in which the donkey and the colt are distinguished, as is possible in the parallel structure in the Hebrew. John’s citation is akin to John the Baptist’s reference to Isa 40:3 (1:23) in its condensation and merging of clauses. Indeed, his telling of the story in general is condensed to make room for commentary, such as how the disciples did not understand the entry at first, but after his glorification they remembered that these things were written about him (12:16).

The incident at the temple features two other texts from Isaiah and Jeremiah more prominently, as Jesus quotes from them. But the event may also ironically evoke Zech 14:21 in how Jesus drives out the moneychangers and merchants. It is unclear whether    כנעניin Zech 14:21 has an ethno-religious sense of “Canaanite” or a mercantile one of “trader/merchant.”³ Whatever the sense of this label, the immediate context indicates that their absence from the house of the Lord is a result of the consummate holiness of Jerusalem in the oracle. If there is an allusion here, it is ironic since Jesus’s driving out the traders is likely not an act of restorative cleansing, but is more like a symbolic, proleptic ḥerem anticipating the temple’s destruction because it could not serve as the house of the Lord (Matt 21:18–22 // Mark 11:12–14, 20–21; Matt 24:2 // Mark 13:2 // Luke 21:6; Luke 19:41–44). The larger context of Zech 14:21 may provide a connection with the temple episode in the pilgrimage of the nations to worship the Lord (14:16–19).⁴ Yet Jesus says that the people (especially the leaders) have turned the temple from a house of prayer for all the nations into a den of bandits. Likewise, although I think the incident is a different event rather than a transposition—which I will explore another time—one could also argue that this text resonates more with the temple incident in John 2.

The next case comes from the Olivet Discourse. I have already mentioned one instance from Matt 25:31 and that I would not be going back over the influence of Zech 13–14 in Mark 13 (though one can find these connections in the parallels as well). But there are a few other minor connections to note. One, Matt 24:27 with its reference to lightning may be loosely connected to the same imagery of theophany in Zech 9:14. Two, Matt 24:30 represents another combined allusion with Dan 7:13–14, this time with Zech 12:10 in its reference to the people on earth mourning when they see the sign of the Son of Man. Three, the gathering of the elect in Matt 24:31 // Mark 13:27 is reminiscent of the gathering of God’s people in Zech 10:6–12, though, based on what I have observed elsewhere, this may be a case where the Zechariah text is one among a group of texts that influence this expectation.

The next connection is exclusive to Matthew. Only Matthew mentions the thirty pieces of silver Judas was paid and thus he is the only one who correlates it to Scripture. The reference to the thirty pieces of silver (26:15; 27:9–10) is drawn from the reference to the thirty shekels of silver in Zech 11:12–13, where it is an insultingly low wage given to Zechariah as the Lord’s representative shepherd. Jesus fulfills this type as it is the price set on his betrayal as the shepherd who will be struck (per Zech 13, as Jesus fulfills both Zech 11 and 13). Matthew links it to Jeremiah, as also in the composite reference of 2 Chr 36:21 (cf. Lev 26:34–35; Jer 25:12), since the composite reference is to Zechariah and to Jer 32:6–14.

The influence of Zech 9–14 is also present in the Last Supper story at two points. First, Mark 14:24 and its parallels in Matt 26:28 and Luke 22:20 appear to feature Jesus reconfiguring Zech 9:11 as Jesus now describes himself as having the role of establisher of the covenant and Savior:

Zech 9:11 (LXX): καὶ σὺ ἐν αἵματι διαθήκης σου (“and you in the blood of your covenant”)

Mark 14:24: Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τῆς διαθήκης (“This is my blood of the covenant”)

Second, and most directly, Matt 26:31 // Mark 14:27 quotes Zech 13:7, although in a form not strictly conforming to the LXX or MT. This text is the only time in Mark that Jesus directly describes himself as a shepherd, and it is only the second time he does so in Matthew (cf. 25:32, where this is an eschatological role of his; also note John 10:11–18, which may show more indirect influence from this text). Through this reference to Zechariah, he draws on a rich tradition imaging God and God’s appointed leader as shepherds.⁵ In Zech 13 the shepherd is likely a positive figure (since God calls him “my associate/fellow” in 13:7), which makes the action against the shepherd shocking and an ideal model for how Jesus expresses his own identity. While Jesus does not quote the remnant promises that follow in Zech 13:8–9, Matt 26:32 // Mark 14:28 has the same restorative logic that flows from the Zechariah text. But now the means for restoration is shown to be Jesus’s resurrection. Much like the invocation of Ps 118, which we examined last time, this text is thus presented as a framework through which to understand the narrative of the major gospel events. Similarly, it is not explicitly referenced in John 16:32, but the same expectation is present there and in v. 33.

One place in which it is sometimes supposed that the text has had an influence is in the resurrection of the saints in Matt 27:52–53. I plan to explore this text another time, but for now we can explore the purported connection to Zech 14:4–5. Among the many proposed textual connections, this is one of those I am less confident about. The text does refer to God coming with his holy ones (which may be referring to saints or angels, but in any case the same term would be used) and there is new exodus imagery here and in the context. These connections fit with the Matthean text. However, the resurrection is not connected here, except in a Targum manuscript called Codex Reuchlinianus, which connects God’s coming in Zech 14 to the resurrection of the dead after the sounding of YHWH’s trumpet. A similar connection of the splitting of the Mount of Olives and the resurrection of the dead appears in a painting at the synagogue in Dura-Europos, which may have come from a similar eschatological tradition. But there is no clear indication that Matthew knew this tradition of association or if he followed it, hence why I am not as confident in this intertextual connection.

There may be an additional connection in Jesus’s reference to Scripture in John 7:38. He refers to something Scripture has said, but provides no direct quote that matches any text (somewhat like the “Nazarene” reference Matthew makes in Matt 2:23). But the promise of living water, which John connects with the Spirit flowing from their bellies is reminiscent of the vision of Ezek 47:1–12 with the new river flowing out from under the temple, as well as of the promise of living water flowing out from Jerusalem in Zech 14:8. It is especially noteworthy that Jesus says this on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkot, since there was a ritual of pouring water on the altar during the feast in remembrance of such promises, and Zech 14 is the only text in the Latter Prophets to refer to this feast by name (14:16–19). As such, it may be that the Zechariah text is more pronounced here with its eschatological associations with the feast.

In another place, John may make explicit what the other Gospels keep implicit. Namely, John 19:37 cites Zech 12:10 in conjunction with Exod 12:46 to describe Jesus’s crucifixion and piercing by the spear. He fulfills what it means for the subject—God—to be pierced, but he is also the Lamb who is slain for the Passover and does not have any of his bones broken (cf. John 1:29). In his crucifixion and what will follow, he brings about the new exodus and fulfills promises of judgment and salvation, as part of his larger purpose in fulfilling Scripture.

1. Konrad R. Schaefer, “The Ending of the Book of Zechariah: A Commentary,” RB 100 (1993): 165–238; idem, “Zechariah 14: A Study in Allusion,” CBQ 57 (1995): 66–91.

2. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, vol. 1 of Christian Origins and the Question of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 462 n. 66. Cf. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34b (Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 329. Seyoon Kim (“Jesus—The Son of God, the Stone, the Son of Man, and the Servant: The Role of Zechariah in the Self-Identification of Jesus,” in Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for His 60th Birthday, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Otto Betz [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987], 139–44) argues for a similar process in which Zech 9—14 provides a bridge between several other texts in Jesus’ identity as the Son of God, Son of David, Son of Man, and cornerstone.

3. The LXX favors “Canaanite” while Jerome and the Targum favor “trader/merchant.” Among modern interpreters, Carol and Eric Meyers (Zechariah 9—14, AB 25C [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 489–90) and Albert M. Wolters (Zechariah, HCOT [Leuven: Peeters, 2014], 473) favor the former while Mark J. Boda (Haggai, Zechariah, NIVAC [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004], 529), James D. Nogalski (The Book of the Twelve: Micah—Malachi, SHBC [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2011], 982) and Ralph L. Smith (Micah-Malachi, WBC 32 [Waco, TX: Word, 1984], 292), favor the latter.

4. In this context, Katrina J. A. Larkin (The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study on the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, CBET 6 [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994], 214) takes the promise of 14:21 to mean that all people would be God’s people.

5. God: Gen 48:15; 49:24; Pss 23:1; 28:9; 80:1; Eccl 12:11; Isa 40:11; 63:11; Jer 31:10; Ezek 34:11–22, 31; Mic 7:14. Leaders: Num 27:17; 2 Sam 5:2; 7:7; 24:17; Ps 78:71–72; Isa 44:28; 63:11; Jer 3:15; 17:16; 23:4; Ezek 34:23–24; 37:24; Mic 5:4–6.